Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Klinean statecraft

Green Baggins has been having a prolonged debate over the “Escondido” model of statecraft. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to have a real debate in that venue because Reed DePace gets his pink tutu in a knot when things are going badly for his own team. So I’ll just make a few broad observations here:

1. A Theocratic State

i) Israel was a theocratic state. The classic Anabaptist argument against any carryover of the Mosaic law into the new covenant seizes the theocratic dimension of ancient Israel.

And that’s an argument which has the strengths and weaknesses of a half-truth. It’s true that there were some unique aspects to the status of ancient Israel. Laws which prefigure the Messianic age. The cultic holiness of the land, the people, the Temple, &c.

So there’s undoubtedly a fair measure of discontinuity between ancient Israel and the church, or the old covenant and the new.

However, that analysis is very lop-sided. Not only was ancient Israel a theocracy, it was also a nation-state. Stop and ask yourself what the Mosaic law would look like if Israel were only a nation state, and not a theocracy. What would be absent? What would remain?

It would still have laws on sex crimes, property crimes, violent crimes, and so forth. So it’s simplistic to relegate the whole Mosaic law code to the era of types and shadows. That’s a catchy slogan, but it overlooks the obvious.

ii) Keep in mind, too, that the Mosaic law is the only inspired law code we have. So there’s an obvious value in using that as a frame of reference rather than merely human law codes.

iii) A more principled, potential objection to the relevance of the Mosaic law is that many of its regulations are quite timebound because they are adapted to the socioeconomic conditions of life in the ANE (e.g. agrarian economy, tribal structure, common property). 

At the same time, many Mosaic regulations may also exemplify generic principles which can be abstracted from the specifics of the historical setting.

Indeed, we do the same thing in reference to NT ethics. We need to distinguish general norms from timebound applications. We also need to analogize from the situation of 1C Christians to the situation of modern-day Christians.

So the more responsible course of action would be to evaluate OT laws on a case-by-case basis. There’s no antecedent presumption one way or another regarding their contemporary relevance. We only know by looking inside the box and sorting the contents.

2. The Decalogue

The Confessional tradition of the Westminster Standards codifies the continuing relevance of the Ten Commandments. That, however, carries certain implications:

i) The Ten Commandments can't be confined to personal ethics. They weren't merely, or even primarily, a rule for sanctification. In context, they concern social ethics. Public policy. To restrict them to personal ethics flouts the original intent of the Decalogue. 

ii) The Ten Commandments can’t be put in airtight compartments which isolate the Decalogue from the subsequent case-laws. For the Ten Commandments are just a set of general norms, while the case-laws illustrate specific ways in which the Ten Commandments apply to particular situations. Put another way, the case-laws function as a commentary on the Ten Commandments. How the Ten Commandments were understood to apply at a concrete, practical level. A detailed explication of the Ten Commandments.

Therefore, to the extent that Confessional Presbyterianism is committed to the contemporary relevance of the Decalogue, it is logically committed to case-laws insofar as they unpack the Decalogue. That’s a corollary commitment.

Of course, that’s still subject to the caveats under (1-iii).

3. Klinean Statecraft

Although some Reformed Presbyterians talk like Anabaptists, a more popular move in Reformed circles is to go the Klinean route, with intrusion ethics, a secularized redefinition of common grace, &c. The leading exponent of this position is Lee Irons.

Debates over 2-k can be very theoretical. But it’s useful to bring this down to earth. Lee’s support for “civil” sodomite marriage is a good test-case of what Klinean statecraft means in real-world terms. And you can take it from there. 

11 comments:

  1. Steve, would you mind if I re-print this post on my blog? I think you do a good job of getting at the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Green Baggins has been having a prolonged debate over the “Escondido” model of statecraft. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to have a real debate in that venue because Reed DePace gets his pink tutu in a knot when things are going badly for his own team."

    Reed should not be moderating if he feels compelled to tilt the playing field in favor of "his own team."

    Steve, you wrote the following perceptive comment on that thread:

    "Well, Reed, your clerical nepotism doesn’t surprise me. I was merely holding Hart to his own standards. But you have your elder club where you have different rules for members of the club. You’re an elder, Hart’s an elder, so you protect your own.

    That kind of favoritism that brings the church into disrepute.


    You always value etiquette over ethics. Thanks for yet another reminder of where your priorities lie."

    Very perceptive, very true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. More importantly, you were absolutely right. Reed is protecting Hart and is playing favorites. The following exchange from that thread proves it:

    [Me] Questions for Darryl Hart: “Do you condemn the American Revolution which was civil disobedience?”

    Furthermore, suppose there were Christian pastors and churches in the colonies who participated in the public square to wage civil disobedience against the civil magistrates in England. Does PC 2k condemn those Christian pastors and churches who participated in the public square to wage civil disobedience against the civil magistrates in England?

    —————

    Given that Darryl Hart has had ample time and opportunity to respond to these questions it’s not unreasonable to conclude that he’s ducking.

    Hmmmmmm….

    PC 2K… demolished because a very simple question wafted in and blew apart its foundations, well then, that tells you what a weak and incoherent mess PC 2K really is.

    Laughable really. Darryl Hart has invested so much time, energy, and effort to advocating his R2K or PC 2K views, and then to have it demolished so easily by such a simple question has got to be humiliating.

    Let’s change the last part to “Darryl Hart has invested so much time, energy, and effort to advocating his R2K or PC 2K views, and then to have it demolished so easily by such a simple question has got to be humbling.”

    If PC 2K can’t even coherently answer:

    Does PC 2k condemn those Christian pastors and churches who participated in the public square to wage civil disobedience against the civil magistrates in England?

    Why waste any more time on PC 2K?

    [Reed] TUAD: your last comment is not advancing the discussion. It merely belittles your opponent, and than on that basis assumes victory over your opponent’s position.


    I’m used to you arguing better than this in the past. Please, make a better argument next time.

    [Me] Hi Reed,

    I have merely requested that Darryl Hart answer the simple and straightforward questions posed to him. His answer or his non-answer does advance the discussion.

    Thanks.

    [Reed] TUAD: Yes, but Darryl’s non-answer could be for other reasons than you’ve “demolished” his argument. That’s a tad hyping. That, coupled with “humiliating” and “humbling” is my reason for saying you were just belittling him.

    I’m all for witty comment, even sarcasm used appropriately. I just thought your comment didn’t maintain the balance you normally do.

    [Me] “Yes, but Darryl’s non-answer could be for other reasons than you’ve “demolished” his argument.”

    No Reed, that’s not it.

    I’m clearly saying that *IF* PC 2K can’t or won’t coherently answer a simple question like:

    “Does PC 2k condemn those Christian pastors and churches who participated in the public square to wage civil disobedience against the civil magistrates in England?”

    Then it shows what a weak and incoherent mess PC 2K really is.

    You see the difference, Reed?

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. [Reed] TUAD: Yes, I understand the difference.

    Your comment assumes that can’t or won’t is proof that the 2K position is therefore weak. It may be, but it may not. Such absence of answer is not proof of absence of correctness. Yourthen does not follow from your if.

    Even more silly is your belittling assertion that can’t or won’t devastates Darryl’s argument and humiliates him. It does nothing of the sort, simply because there are other reasonable explanations for the can’t or won’t that do not address the merits of your question.

    A poor argument, and one that I think use belittling to make its case. Do you see the difference TUAD?

    [Me] Hi Reed,

    I need some help clarifying what you’re saying here. This is what I understand you to be saying:

    If a position or stance or argument can’t or won’t address a counter-argument’s question, then you’re saying that the position or stance or argument under scrutiny from the counter-argument’s question cannot be said to be faulty or flawed “because there are other reasonable explanations for the can’t or won’t that do not address the merits” of the question.

    Reed, let’s explore this reasoning further.

    If you are right, then anytime someone poses a question that you don’t want to answer or can’t answer, then you can still claim that your position is still sound and valid and true and good. Is that right?

    Or on the flip side, suppose you or Lane poses a question to a Catholic apologist or an atheist or a theological liberal or a Federal Visionist or whoever with regards to the argument that they are advancing. They don’t answer your question. You then claim that this shows a severe weakness in their argument. They say “No, it doesn’t.” They then say that they have or may have other undisclosed reasonable explanations for the can’t or won’t that do not address the merits of your question. And therefore, their position still holds in the face of your unanswered question.

    Is this what you’re advocating Reed?

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. [Reed] For goodness sake’s TUAD, it is rather more simple than that. I often do not have time to respond to everything on this blog simply because this blog is at the bottom of the list of my priorities.

    E.g., does the fact that I can’t get to responding to a compelling question from you because I’m too busy with a dying church member mean your position is right?

    E.g., does the fact that I won’t respond to your argument because I think it is more important to give time to shepherding my family in daily worship mean that you’ve devastated my argument?

    I’m simply observing that Darryl has not responded. I never said or inferred that the reason he hasn’t is because he is using non-responsiveness as a debate tactic. (Your RCC example is moot.)

    Even if Darryl were refusing to respond, this would not prove you’ve devastated his argument. All it shows it that your question has not been answered. It may be because he can’t or won’t because his position can’t handle your argument. But the mere fact of non-response does not necessitate the affirmation of what is merely a possibility.

    You wrote in such a way as to construct the following syllogism:
    > Answer if you can
    >If you can’t or worn’t,
    > Then this is proof you’re devastatingly wrong and I’m right
    > Further then, such failure or refusal to answer is proof my argument is personally humiliating (humbling) to you
    Your thens do not logically follow from your if.

    You’ve limited the reasons to why Darryl has not given an answer to two:
    > He can’t because his position isn’t able to do so, or
    > He won’t because he knows he can’t.

    That is just silly. Maybe he’s out earning bread for his family. Maybe he finds your hype so presumptuous as to not want to waste his time answering you,

    Seriously TUAD, is it possible you’re so deep into the debate that your emotions are getting the better or you? I admit Darryl has an occasional effect that prompts huffing and puffing from his opponents. I was offering some friendly advice to help you avoid that kind of response.

    [Me] “Maybe he’s out earning bread for his family. Maybe he finds your hype so presumptuous as to not want to waste his time answering you.”

    Could be.

    But Reed, please do note that should someone whom you’re debating with doesn’t answer an incisive question that you are posing to his or her argument, that person can ignore your question and still claim that his or her argument or positin still holds.

    In fact Reed, by your own standards that you’re setting forth here, no one need answer any question posed to them and to the argument they’re advancing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. [Reed] As to your immediately prior response, yes I see the significance of the debate tactic of not responding to a comment. I am not ignorant that one’s opponent can simply ignore a challenge and then act as if his position is secure. I’m also aware that an Emperor can think he is wearing clothes when he is not. The fact that one wants to use a weak debate tactic does not mean I need to respond with my on erroneous argument.

    This is neither here nor there in this case. Note that Darryl stopped responding on this thread before you posted your comment. He’s not responded to others’ comments as well. This does not prove he can’t or won’t.

    Assume he was still responding to other comments here. Assume he acknowledged your comment and simply responded with a “I’m not answering that.” Such a non-response response does not prove you’re position is correct. It only proves that he does not want to respond. If he is using this as a debate tactic it certainly won’t help prove his argument.

    It is how you go on to then prove your argument that will show whether or not your opponent’s failure to respond is material. Simply asserting that non-responsiveness proves your case is silly. Do you disagree with the logic I laid out?

    The merits of your question were never in view in my critique. The assertion that a non-response was devastating proof that your position is correct is in view.

    [Me] Note that Darryl stopped responding on this thread before you posted your comment. He’s not responded to others’ comments as well. This does not prove he can’t or won’t.”

    Actually Reed, you’re innocently mistaken.

    I asked my question in comment #107. Darryl Hart has posted comments subsequent to that.

    I also re-asked the question in comment #130. Darryl Hart has posted comments subsequent to that one as well.

    Thanks.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. [Me] “The assertion that a non-response was devastating proof that your position is correct is in view."

    The view needs to be adjusted.

    Better: “The assertion that a non-response is a devastating point in showing that the non-responsive position is in shambles is in view.”

    Also, I have read Darryl Hart accuse TurretinFan of being “dodgy.” By Darryl Hart’s own measure he himself would be considered “dodgy” for not answering the simple and straightforward questions posed to him. Furthermore, since Darryl Hart accuses TurretinFan of being “dodgy” when he himself is “dodgy”, that would make Darryl Hart a hypocrite, yes?

    Unless you want to eliminate the accusation of “dodgy” whenever there’s no response or answer to a question.

    I.e., Green Baggins Commenting Policy: For all non-answers to questions, the questioners shall not accuse the non-answerers of being dodgy or evasive.

    [Reed] TUAD: seriously, at this point, whatever. I thought about responding one more time, but just forget it.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. [Darryl Hart] Reed, thanks for trying to supply interpretive breadth to what my silence may or may not mean.

    [Me] (Quoting Comment #336 from Previous Thread)

    Darryl Hart: “Tfan, so what exactly is the point of this exchange? You tell me how 2k is at variance with Calvin. I point out some of the virtues of being at variance with Calvin and ask if you agree with Calvin? You won’t say whether or not you agree with Calvin and add that that is not the point. The point is my disagreement with Calvin. I try to explain my difference. You tell me my argument is bankrupt.

    It must be nice to be the judge and never have to submit to scrutiny or justify your view — not to mention hide behind a pseudonym. You may not be bankrupt, but you sure are dodgy — which is not how someone would characterize Turretin.

    Dude, Turretin up!”

    Dear TurretinFan who’s accused of being “dodgy”,

    Please feel free not to answer this hypocrite whenever it suits you.

    [Reed] TUAD: such name calling is over the line. Stop. Now.

    ---------

    What the heck?! Darryl Hart clearly shows himself to be a hypocrite and Reed screams that I'm name-calling? If something is true, why is that "name-calling"? Also, suppose I were name-calling, isn't hypocrisy worse than name-calling? And shouldn't Reed be more concerned with Darryl Hart's hypocrisy than any "name-calling"?

    So Reed, if he was a moderator between the Pharisees and Jesus, he would have let the Pharisees continue their hypocrisy, but he'd call out Jesus's etiquette: "Jesus: such name calling is over the line. Stop. Now."

    ReplyDelete
  9. So Steve, you were amazingly on-target when you had written to Reed:

    o You’re an elder, Hart’s an elder, so you protect your own.

    o That kind of favoritism that brings the church into disrepute.

    o You always value etiquette over ethics. Thanks for yet another reminder of where your priorities lie

    Steve, How did you know???

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve wrote: "So there’s undoubtedly a fair measure of discontinuity between ancient Israel and the church, or the old covenant and the new."

    This is indeed true, however it's fair to point out that this discontinuity may be artificial, given that there is discontinuity (disagreement and controversy) within Reformed Christianity's understanding old covenant and new covenant theology of assembly; where old covenant assembly was seen to be Israel and new covenant assembly which has been translated 'church'.

    If instead of seeing old and new covenant theology as separate (divided), we somehow managed to see instead (and agree upon) a biblical view of one unfulfilled covenant and fulfilled covenant, but one covenant nonetheless, described across an entire Bible rather than confined to a testaments (or covenant), all evident discontinuity between ancient Israel and the church would ultimately disappear.

    So observations about discontinuities within theology could indeed point to a change in theological systems, but could equally point to unrecognized (and unaddressed) problems of our theology.

    ReplyDelete